I
suppose it could just be coincidence that the latest “sex scandal” --
that of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl) -- hit the news the day after Congress
passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA). It's certainly not at all
unusual that the corporate-media is giving Foley, detailed,
wall-to-wall coverage, while barely mentioning the MCA and not
explaining what the bill means.

Pundits express outrage over Foley's
e-mails to Congressional pages, although law enforcement on NPR said
that, while "inappropriate", most of the messages amounted to little
more than "flirting" and hence, are not criminal. No sexual acts are
alleged at all. The male objects of Foley's attention seem to have all
been 16 or 17 years old -- who, while minors, are clearly not
"children," as they are being referred to. Given what messages have
been quoted, I suspect that most the young men Foley e-mailed have
seen (and perhaps even written themselves) far more explicit material
on MySpace.

I'm not justifying adults' sexual interest towards teens (of either
gender), however, I suspect Republicans will exploit Foley to
reinforce the homophobia of their conservative Christian base. They
certainly won't take responsibility for their leadership's failures to
address the e-mails when they were first discovered.

"Protect the children!" has long been the rightwing rally: from being
a zygote in the womb to recognizing the reality that not everyone is
heterosexual (even some of the youth themselves) to making sure
students are not exposed to intellectual ideas and political analysis
termed more "radical" than what rightwing think tanks deem acceptable
-- even in college. Ultimately, the conservative call to “protect”
children and youth is another empty slogan.

Even in "progressive" Minnesota, where I live, the Republican Governor
Tim Pawlenty has cut funding for domestic violence shelters since
2002. Services for children impacted by domestic violence and abuse
have long been neglected, even though it's now known children simply
witnessing domestic violence (not even being hit themselves) is
harmful: 60% of boys become batterers and 40$ of girls become victims.
Over half the homeless population is mothers with children, many of
them fleeing violence. Nightly, almost 1,000 Minnesota youth 13 to 21
are homeless, (mostly in Minneapolis and St. Paul) -- with about 200
shelter beds available for them. Youth on the streets are approached
by pimps or other adult men seeking sex with them within 48 hours of
running away from home. Half the youth on the streets are fleeing
physical and/or sexual abuse in their homes.

In fact, the majority of sexual abuse of children and teens is
committed by a relative, stepparent or mother's boyfriend. This is
similar to the sexual assault of women, where in 80% or more attacks,
the perpetrator is known. Whether it's children and teens assaulted by
those who are supposed to care for them the most or the majority of
women surviving sexual assault, most of these cases are not even
reported and when they are prosecuted too often receive relatively
light sentences. The disconnect between the rhetoric of protection and
the reality of how sexual violence is addressed is an unexamined
contradiction.

One in five American children live in poverty and millions have no
access to healthcare. Protecting the wealth of the top 5% is a far
higher political priority than protecting the well-being of poor
children.

Returning to the “timing” of the breaking story of the Foley non-sex
scandal and protection, corporate media has failed to inform the
American people that we have all lost some of the most basic
protection: the rule of law. When Congress passed the Military
Commission Act, it gave the Executive Branch the power to totally
bypass judicial review and unilaterally define ANYone --
citizens of other countries, immigrants here and, yes, American
citizens -- as "enemy combatants" or as having acted to "aid terrorist
organizations or those hostile to the U.S." None of these terms is
specifically defined and so can mean whatever the Bush Administration
says they do -- and hence, be used against anyone the State targets.

Torture was also redefined, making Abu Ghraib acts no longer torture
at all. That means the revealed sexual abuse, being threatened with
dogs, stress positions and “waterboarding” (near-drowning) are
considered allowable. Even the Attorney General Albert Gonzales' and
former Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo's torture memo definition
that "real torture" means "organ failure" or "death" has been in
effect, dropped.

Now, a tactic already proven useful to rolling back civil rights laws
is in place: focus on alleged perpetrators' "intent" NOT the impact of
acts on the victim. In racial and gender discrimination cases, this
has meant the question is “Did the company or individual INTEND to
discriminate?” -- not looking at actions and their effect on the
person charging discrimination. When it comes to torture, perpetrators
can claim their intent was to "gain information," not to torture.

This is completely against the Geneva Conventions.

Theoretically, this means that even torturing detainees to death is
legal, as long as it's claimed that the intent was not to torture or
kill, but to "gain information." Never mind that even the CIA and
other U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledge that information gained
through torture is notoriously unreliable. One undeniable example is
Iraq's alleged "nuclear program" and other WMDs, Collin Powell told
the United Nations in order to justify the American invasion. The
source of that information was an Iraqi detainee sent by the U.S. to
Egypt and tortured.

Why torture if any information gained is highly suspect? Because as
all dictatorships know very well, torture is an effective technique to
terrorize a population into submission. Just ask the people across
Latin America, subjected to torturers, trained by the U.S. Army School
of the Americas in Ft. Benning, Georgia. Ask American men of color
subjected to police brutality that the International Declaration of
Human Rights recognizes as torture. American police chiefs and mayors
rarely acknowledge police brutality even exists -- much less that
groups like Amnesty International define it as torture.

Domestic terrorism -- whether in the home or perpetrated by the U.S.
government -- is the threat I worry about far more than the
“evil-doers” Bush cites in every speech. It's not protection that the
MCA seeks, but like every batterer, rapist or torturer, the aim is
absolute control. Without the real protection of the rule of law, no
one is safe.

Lydia Howell
is a Minneapolis journalist, poet, activist and producer/host of
Catalyst: Politics & Culture on KFAI Radio, archived for two weeks
after broadcast at:
www.kfai.org.